2018 Ballot Question 4: Marsy’s Law – Good Intentions and Unintended Consequences

Ballot Question 4:

Marsy’s Law Proves Hollow Amendment with Potential for Problems

Your ballot will have five ballot questions regarding amendments to the state constitution, as well as two referenda questions. These amendments require approval by a public vote and had to be approved by 2/3 of the legislature to be put on the ballot. However, the ballot questions are often worded in a way that makes them difficult to understand and doesn’t reveal the full story to the voter. On this year’s ballot there is one question that particularly relates to the criminal justice system so we wanted to address it.

Marsy’s Law is the name given to legislation that would amend the state constitution with the goal of ensuring victims’ rights are protected. That is how it’s described by those in favor anyway.

We believe that Marsy’s Law is not a good piece of legislation and will explain why.

First, here’s the text of the question as it will appear on your ballot:

Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to provide certain rights to victims against whom a crime has allegedly been perpetrated and allow victims to assert such rights?

Now, this sounds reasonable and positive at first read. The victims’ rights this refers to include things such as being notified if your attacker is going to be considered for probation or release. But there is more to consider.

Some of the confusion around the issue in Georgia is that Marsy’s Law is part of a nationwide campaign seeking to make changes to all state constitutions and each state’s version has proven different. Other states have had more problematic components that groups like the ACLU believed would infringe upon due process for those accused of a crime.

Iowa is one such example, and you may have seen this article from ACLU, “‘Victims’ Rights’ Proposals Like Marsy’s Law Undermine Due Process.” In Montana, they’ve already overturned their version because it was ruled to be unconstitutional.

Georgia’s version does not appear to be as threatening but is still unwise for several reasons.

1. Redundancy. Georgia has a strong Victims’ Bill of Rights under state law. It already provides all of the protections that are described in the text of Georgia’s proposed amendment. Instead of repeating ourselves, let’s first try to ensure the enforcement of the laws that exist.
2. Overly Difficult to Revise. Constitutional amendments require great effort by legislators and the public to change. If it turned out that this amendment resulted in discrimination or harmful unintended consequences down the line, or that it needed to be revised to be more effective, it will be overly difficult to revise. We consider it wiser to keep the law in the form of a state statute as it exists now where it is more easily revised by a legislative vote. However, if it were to be deemed unconstitutional in court, it would be repealed.
3. Outside Source Pushing Hollow Change. After the amendment was approved by legislature through lobbying efforts, the Marsy’s Law for Georgia committee was formed in April of 2018 and was given over 7 million dollars by the national organization to market this effort to the public. While we believe the intentions of this effort are most likely positive, the solution crafted for Georgia does not represent a meaningful improvement to current law. We do not believe a symbolic win for a national nonprofit is going to help victims in Georgia.

For more details, Ballotpedia has a great impartial analysis.